As Flemming writes: "But patterns are essentially a way of successfully
navigating an otherwise confusing world. A pattern is the way things are
arranged. Without worrying too much about the exact things that are
arranged, one concerns oneself with the arrangement they're in.
Structure as opposed to content."

I think of this as being aware of the limits of our mind, and how they
affect us. There aren't that many structures out there, at least not
"genuine" structures that actually constrain our intuition. I will
write separately about my thoughts.

One subject I'm really interested in doing something with, but which I haven't really gotten around to, is the analysis of information in order to learn the truth. Hm, I guess it is a little hard to express what I mean, but I'm talking about the ability to track down what is true and false by studying clues in the information available. There is lots of information that will indirectly reveal whether something else is true or false. Somebody who's trying to deceive and hide the real truth will reveal that fact in an assorment of ways.

Now, the reason I'm so interested in this is that the majority of the population has no clue about what is true or false, and is easily deceived. Most all media is built around that fact. All legal institutions are based on the principle that whoever argues the best for their version of truth, wins, and doesn't have any technology for actually finding truth. Likewise, science is built on models that large numbers of scientists can agree on and demonstrate the validity of, and will happily ignore huge chunks of reality that don't fit the agreed-upon reality.

I am claiming that the {{Reality}} we live in is to a large degree a fiction that is constructed by the data we're presented with, and by the ways we've been taught to interpret it. And that version of reality is at best very incomplete, and very often very misleading, and leaving unexamined large chunks of reality that exist outside the public awareness. What makes the manufactured reality so compelling is that, to the untrained eye, it is internally consistent. I.e. it all sort of fits together, and anything that doesn't fit can easily be discarded.

I'm also claiming that there are agencies in the world that are masters in this area, and that are very skilled both in analyzing the patterns of what is really going on for their own use, and in manufacturing patterns for the rest of us to see, which will paint a mutual consensus reality for us. These agencies can hide enormous secrets from the rest of us without much fear of them being discovered, because their secrets make little sense within our consensus reality.

And I'm saying that the antidote is to develop disciplines of investigation that cut through the concensus deceptions and that can reveal thruth in a fairly systematic way.

The components of this would be a mixture of different disciplines, some of which don't quite exist. That ranges from different kinds of data analysis, pattern matching, psychological tools, body language, intuitive skills.

It is not quite true that I haven't gotten around to this at all. I'm trained in some things that go in that direction. For example, I'm a master practitioner in Neuro-linguisticProgramming, and I know a lot of about BodyLanguage. I can tell loads by how somebody's moving their body, how they're breathing, how their eyes move, their voice pattern, etc. That is in part what inspires me to go further with it. It is often very obvious to me whether somebody who appears on TV is lying or speaking the truth. But I also notice that for most everybody else it is a matter of a lot of abstract, preconceived opinions that really have nothing to do with what they can directly perceive.

I also have some minimal training in an obscure system of data analysis which involves the examination of {{Out-points}} and {{Plus-points}} in any stream of information. By noticing little things that are wrong, or that work better than expected, and by tracking down where they come from, one can usually discover a bigger story that isn't directly revealed. That will often produce results that are somewhat counter-intuitive. That is, a truth might emerge that is counter to what the casual observer would conclude. For example, one might examine a company and get surprising results concerning who is screwing things up and who is making things go right. It will often be different people that either take the credit, or that get blamed, than what is really going on.

Yeah, this is a bit vague, but I just wanted to express that this is one of my interest areas, and something that is in need of being developed and integrated.

The things to do are: the things that need doing: that you see need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be done. Then you will conceive your own way of doing that which needs to be done -- that no one else has told you to do or how to do it. This will bring out the real you that often gets buried inside a character that has acquired a superficial array of behaviors induced or imposed by others on the individual.--Buckminster Fuller

I gotta quote that once in a while, as it is one of my favorites. The things to do are the things that need doing, that you see need to be done, and that no one else seems to see need to be done.

To me it implies that there's meaning in life. That we're here for something. That there's something unique and useful for us to do. It doesn't have to be taken that way. You can simply use it as a method for grabbing the opportunities with the most potential. The most satisfying kind of success is found in doing something needed, at the right time, which nobody else noticed was needed. There's not so much potential in just doing what everybody else is doing. No, see something different, and do something different. But do something that is needed.

We all seem to be different. From nature's hand we all have a little bit different DNA, different fingerprints. And then different experiences that have influenced us, different information we have absorbed. And including all that, and beyond all that, we each have a different consciousness, a different way of seeing things, a different perspective. It is only natural that we will see somebody nobody else is seeing, and we'll see things a different way than others. We're perceiving the world from a different point, using different filters than anybody else. And that is probably not just an accident, an error in the production machinery of nature. No, I don't think it is. It is a feature. It is by design. I'm inherently made up to see things differently and to do things differently than anybody else.

It is a bit of a waste if one just tries to do what everybody else is doing. A waste if one only learns to see things like one is "supposed" to. A waste of life. You're boring God, if you want to put it that way. There isn't a lot of use for billions of people who try to do the same thing the same way. It is counter-evolutionary. Short-circuiting the creative process of evolution. We've somehow accidentally created a society that tries to make us all do the same thing. It was a dumb idea. And it isn't going to work, because you just can't stop everybody from having a different perspective. There will always be somebody who sees something different and who acts on it.

There are lots of things that don't need doing, because they don't really add value. It is just like Information Theory. There isn't much information in "0000000000000001000000". There's just that one "1", and its position. Predictable information can be left out when data is transmitted, because it doesn't add meaning, it doesn't add value, it isn't information. Likewise, if you're just doing something that has already been done, in roughly the same way, you aren't adding value. You're wasting our time and yours. The net result is: not very much.

Imagine this reframe of the Information Society: the things that are valuable are those that add information.

A million copies of the same thing is adding no information, no value. It is valuable for somebody to record a new song, which others might find refreshing and enjoyable. A million copies of it add no value in itself. What the listeners might do with them might add value. Compare that with the music industry and arguments for or against file sharing. A new system of sharing adds value. The creative uses of information one has access to adds value. A carbon copy of any of it does not in itself add value. No information, no value.

So, imagine a society that really gets that. Where the value is in adding value. Duh. Economically speaking, I mean. Where the rewarding thing to do is the thing that adds information and value. I.e. you see something new, and you do something about it, and you share it.

We're headed there, I think. And there are well known fields that work pretty much like that. Open source, obviously. There's no point at all in making another piece of software that does exactly the same as another one, if the first one is freely available and modifiable. Might be smarter to look at how one can add value to what is already there, by adding something new, something different.

Lots of people doing what they see needs doing, is probably a very threatening prospect for certain groups, certain people in power positions. So many old structures are based on quite the opposite. I.e. persuading large groups of people to accept the perspective and the needed tasks of a very small group at the top. Here is the perspective you're supposed to have, here are the morals you need to adhere to, and here's your job. Which creates big machines that work, but only inefficiently. So everybody's running around and struggling to do what they're supposed to do. Where the system really could be so much more efficient and fun if we all could be active components, rather than passive. Most of us running on most of our cylinders most of the time. Because our inherent ability and tendency to see things differently and to add value is one of our key qualities. We're conscious players, who have the ability to create information and add value, indefinitely. We just have some unlearning to do, to get back to that.